A Meek Second Coming
After finishing Mr. Akin’s article on the apocalypse (“Apocalypse Not,” January 2000), I’m left with two issues. The first is the interpretation of the prophecy that Jerusalem will be set upon by the Antichrist, who will then be destroyed by the Lord’s Second Coming. That whole section of the article sounded suspiciously like the trap the Israelites fell into during the First Coming. Weren’t they awaiting (and still are) an earthly king to deliver them from their enemies? Could Jesus not return as he did before, from meek and humble beginnings to destroy the enemy slowly (like the Communist Eastern bloc collapsed)? Perhaps a person like Ghandi or Mother Teresa who is victorious through sheer force of love?
The second issue I’m left with is, “Why do we spend so much effort trying to divine when Christ will come again?” If we prepare ourselves, and hold ourselves prepared through all assaults on our faith, then we need not be concerned with the exact hour of our Lord’s return. I believe Jesus may have had just that in mind when he related the story of the bridesmaids—five were ready and attended the celebration, five weren’t prepared and missed out.
I’m not a professional theologian so if there’s something I’m missing, please educate me.
Joe Badalis
Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota
Editor’s reply: The scenario you sketch of a “meek and humble” Second Coming is not in concert with the book of Revelation or any of the biblical allusions to the end times. These speak of Christ’s coming again in apocalyptic terms, of a fire coming down from heaven and consuming the wicked (cf. Rev. 20:9). Christians are not awaiting deliverance, as were the Jews of Jesus’ time; we know Christ’s death and Resurrection have already delivered us. The article was written in response to rampant millennialism, and it’s final point is the same as yours: “What is more important than being concerned with the end of the world is that each of us be concerned with the end of his own life, an event considerably closer.”
Not Sure The Apocalypse Is Centuries Away
I want to thank James Akin for his article about the end-times (“Apocalypse Not,” January 2000). On the whole, it was well thought-out and written, although I am not sure I agree with his conclusion that the Apocalypse is still centuries away. I think the needed conditions could appear much more quickly than he thinks they can, and in that regard I would like to ask him a question. How does the second half of Luke 21:24 fit into his whole apocalyptic scheme? According to the RSV Bible, that verse reads, “Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”
Clearly, Jerusalem is no longer trodden down by the Gentiles, so what can we deduce from this and how does it affect Mr. Akin’s time-frame? And if Mr. Akin does not interpret this verse in an apocalyptic sense, how else can he interpret it, and what else could this verse now mean, since it has not seemingly been fulfilled?
Rick Conason
Gulfport, Mississippi
Jimmy Akin replies: My position is not that the end is still centuries away, but that I don’t know when it will happen. I conceded in the article that it could happen in less than a century, though I think it is likely — given my experience looking at how God tends to work through history — that it won’t be within a hundred years. Once you get past the century mark, however, I am less certain. The right pieces aren’t likely to come together in less than a century. We’ll just have to wait and see how quickly the necessary trends develop.
I do think that the reconstitution of the Jewish state in Palestine after almost 1,900 years of diaspora is a significant indication that we may be closer to the end than not. When the Jews get back that land, it is important. This could, however, be a temporary situation and not a definitive return of Judah to the land. Conceivably, the current state of Israel might fall apart. The reformation of the state and its taking control of Jerusalem do suggest that things are moving, but it could be another “near miss” foreshadowing of the end. If so, we might have another ten thousand years.
Another Reason For Would-be Novelists To Read This Rock
Thanks to James Akin for “Apocalypse Not” (January 2000), a masterpiece of concise teaching on the Second Coming of Christ. His treatment of the recurring fulfillment of biblical prophecy solves the argument of whether the appearance of the Antichrist and other prophecies are in our past or in our future. They’re both. This article would have saved me a lot of thought in writing my book, The Last Fisherman. Keep up the good work. This Rock seems to improving with age.
Randy England
Mexico, Missouri
Editor’s note: England is the author of Unicorn in the Sanctuary: The Impact of the New Age on the Catholic Church (TAN Books, 1990). His latest, The Last Fisherman, is a novel about the last pope and the coming of the Antichrist and end times (Convent Hill, 1999). For more information, check out www.conventhill.com.
Next Computer Crisis: Y10K
A small point regarding “Apocalypse Not” (January 2000): The author makes a side note, however tongue-in-cheek, to anyone surviving through to the year 2099 regarding the changeover of dates on computers—as though that is something to be worried about.
The crisis for the year 2000 was that older software programs had only two digits assigned to identify the year, thus making it impossible for a computer to know the difference between 1900 and 2000.
The next crisis will not be in 2099 but rather in 9999 as we approach the year 10,000. Then the current computer programs, which have only four digits assigned to identify the year, will make it impossible for the computer to distinguish between the year 0000 and the year 10,000, as the only digits in the programs will be the last four zeros.
Scott Harris
Via the Internet
Truth Takes A Backseat To Sidewalks
I read with great interest “Speak the Truth in Love” by Archbishop Charles Chaput (January 2000). Most of the content is common sense, but often we need to see such things in print before they sink in. I didn’t notice who the author was until I got to the end of the article. I was surprised to say the least.
Let me explain.
We have a terrible problem in Wyoming, Utah and other western states. It’s called Mormonism. It is an evil. It robs people’s souls from the true Christ. Its subtle anti-Jesus teachings are one of Satan’s most clever tactics. The Church in these parts does very little to stop it or even to ensure that parishioners know the truth about Mormon beliefs. The parish in Provo, Utah conducted Christmas Eve services in a Mormon building. The Fundamentalists that Archbishop Chaput mentions would never get in bed with the devil like that. The Mormons scored a coup. I wrote to the bishop of Salt Lake City to complain, but I got no response.
Two years ago we got a new priest in Evanston, Wyoming, where I live. I wrote him a welcoming letter and also asked that he consider being more proactive against Mormonism. I got no response. Again, silence speaks for itself.
I finally got fed up with the local clergy and wrote to Archbishop Chaput. I got a letter back saying, “You sound angry.” Well, Archbishop Chaput, many in the Church are angry about the way Jesus is disrespected in Mormon doctrine. Archbishop Chaput ignored the issues that I had raised concerning Mormonism. Seems to me that violates what the archbishop described in his article as “the mission statement of the Catholic faith.”
Here are some of the things I have witnessed in the past seven years. The local priest and I spent many hours doing a comparison paper on Mormonism versus Christianity. The priest put those papers in the magazine rack in the back of our church. Someone complained, so the priest took the papers away. Whether it was a Catholic or Mormon who complained, it was the perfect time to risk humiliation and “speak the truth in love.”
On another occasion I said to the local priest, “I’ll bet at least half the congregation thinks Mormons are Christians.” His response: “Probably.” I waited for his solution to the problem, but it was not forthcoming. Another missed opportunity to “speak the truth in love.” The Code of Canon Law allows priests to spend at least half their homily time talking about local issues. Every priest in this part of the world [Utah] should be doing that on a regular basis, educating the congregation to the deceptions of Mormonism.
And last but not least, I mentioned to the local priest that I think the Church should be more vocal about the lies of Mormonism. His response: “Oh, no. We can’t do that. If we get too vocal, we won’t get grant money for our sidewalks from the Mormon-dominated city council.” I wonder how Jesus feels about that one. The truth has taken a back seat to sidewalks.
What does it teach those of us who watch while our own clergy backs away from publicly speaking the truth in love? Why should we be expected to take that same risk of humiliation that our church leaders habitually avoid?
Archbishop Chaput’s article was a good one, but I suggest he tell his priests and bishops to practice what he preaches.
Mike Naylor
Evanston, Wyoming
Editor’s reply: If Archbishop Chaput said you sounded angry, you probably did. It’s always best to frame your concerns in a measured and reasonable way, even if that’s not the way you feel—even if you are justified in feeling angry. In all his public moral pronouncements, Archbishop Chaput is one of the most articulate and orthodox of all U.S. bishops.
It was McGoldrick, not Carroll
In your “Quick Questions” column in the January issue of This Rock, Jason Evert deals with the validity of “Baptist successionism.” He mentions Dr. J. M. Carroll’s booklet Trail of Blood as encouraging the belief that the Baptist church can trace its roots to the apostles through numerous heretical groups (one of those minor oversights by Carroll) like the Novatians, Arnoldists, Albigenses, et cetera. To disprove Trail of Blood, Jason Evert quotes what he believes is Dr. Carroll, who years later admitted his views were wrong.
This is a misquote. The quotation is taken from James Edward McGoldrick’s book that discredits Baptist successionism and are the words of McGoldrick, not Carroll. When McGoldrick speaks of the “author of the present work” who discovered through extensive research the egregious blunders of the successionist interpretation, he means himself and his book Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History.
A dead-giveaway about the authorship of this quotation is that after reading Trail of Blood you realize the late Dr. Carroll, God rest his soul, was incapable of the succinct style or subtlety of thought displayed by McGoldrick.
Matthew Haltom
Lexington, Kentucky
Depends On Which Anabaptists
Having converted to the Catholic church from a Mennonite background, I was quite startled to read Jason Evert’s statement that “[t]he Anabaptists baptized babies” (“Quick Questions,” January 2000). In fact, the Anabaptists, like their present-day descendants, the Mennonites, held that infant baptism is invalid, and baptized only adult believers. The name Anabaptist (ana-, “again,” and baptizein, “baptize”) reflects their practice of re-baptizing all converts. The Anabaptists never baptized babies: Their rejection of the validity of infant baptism is what caused them to split from the Church in the first place.
Doug Miller
Via the Internet
Jason Evert responds: There are actually no less than two groups that have been called “anabaptists.” In J. M. Carroll’s booklet, he does not trace the Baptists from the more recent anabaptists that you speak of, who date back to the sixteenth century. Carroll was not concerned with this group (which did reject infant baptism). The Anabaptists he traces himself to were a fourth-century group that denied that the baptism of heretics was valid. This group did baptize babies.
As for the quote attributed to Carroll, it was indeed McGoldrick’s. We appreciate the sharp eyes of our readers that correct us on those rare times we err.
Depth, Meat, and Meaning
Regarding Dwight Longenecker’s “House of Mirrors” (“Conversion Story,” November 1999): What a wonderful, thought-provoking article! This is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for when I found Catholic Answers’ magazine—something with depth, meat, and meaning.
Keep up the good work—and bear in mind that for those of us on the lonely outposts here in the Bible belt, anti-Catholic sentiment and Fundamentalist attacks happen every day and are accepted as normal. Thanks again for your great work—it is such a blessing.
Liz Alewine
Richardson, TX